Network analysis of sea turtle movements and connectivity: A tool for conservation prioritization

Aim: Understanding the spatial ecology of animal movements is a critical element in conserving long-lived, highly mobile marine species. Analyzing networks developed from movements of six sea turtle species reveals marine connectivity and can help prioritize conservation efforts. Location: Global. Methods: We collated telemetry data from 1235 individuals and reviewed the literature to determine our dataset's representativeness. We used the telemetry data to develop spatial networks at different scales to examine areas, connections, and their geographic arrangement. We used graph theory metrics to compare networks across regions and species and to identify the role of important areas and connections. Results: Relevant literature and citations for data used in this study had very little overlap. Network analysis showed that sampling effort influenced network structure, and the arrangement of areas and connections for most networks was complex. However, important areas and connections identified by graph theory metrics can be different than areas of high data density. For the global network, marine regions in the Mediterranean had high closeness, while links with high betweenness among marine regions in the South Atlantic were critical for maintaining connectivity. Comparisons among species-specific networks showed that functional connectivity was related to movement ecology, resulting in networks composed of different areas and links. Main conclusions: Network analysis identified the structure and functional connectivity of the sea turtles in our sample at multiple scales. These network characteristics could help guide the coordination of management strategies for wide-ranging animals throughout their geographic extent. Most networks had complex structures that can contribute to greater robustness but may be more difficult to manage changes when compared to simpler forms. Area-based conservation measures would benefit sea turtle populations when directed toward areas with high closeness dominating network function. Promoting seascape connectivity of links with high betweenness would decrease network vulnerability.Fil: Kot, Connie Y.. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Åkesson, Susanne. Lund University; SueciaFil: Alfaro Shigueto, Joanna. Universidad Cientifica del Sur; Perú. University of Exeter; Reino Unido. Pro Delphinus; PerúFil: Amorocho Llanos, Diego Fernando. Research Center for Environmental Management and Development; ColombiaFil: Antonopoulou, Marina. Emirates Wildlife Society-world Wide Fund For Nature; Emiratos Arabes UnidosFil: Balazs, George H.. Noaa Fisheries Service; Estados UnidosFil: Baverstock, Warren R.. The Aquarium and Dubai Turtle Rehabilitation Project; Emiratos Arabes UnidosFil: Blumenthal, Janice M.. Cayman Islands Government; Islas CaimánFil: Broderick, Annette C.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Bruno, Ignacio. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones y Desarrollo Pesquero; ArgentinaFil: Canbolat, Ali Fuat. Hacettepe Üniversitesi; Turquía. Ecological Research Society; TurquíaFil: Casale, Paolo. Università degli Studi di Pisa; ItaliaFil: Cejudo, Daniel. Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria; EspañaFil: Coyne, Michael S.. Seaturtle.org; Estados UnidosFil: Curtice, Corrie. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: DeLand, Sarah. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: DiMatteo, Andrew. CheloniData; Estados UnidosFil: Dodge, Kara. New England Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Dunn, Daniel C.. University of Queensland; Australia. The University of Queensland; Australia. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Esteban, Nicole. Swansea University; Reino UnidoFil: Formia, Angela. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados UnidosFil: Fuentes, Mariana M. P. B.. Florida State University; Estados UnidosFil: Fujioka, Ei. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Garnier, Julie. The Zoological Society of London; Reino UnidoFil: Godfrey, Matthew H.. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission; Estados UnidosFil: Godley, Brendan J.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: González Carman, Victoria. Instituto National de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Harrison, Autumn Lynn. Smithsonian Institution; Estados UnidosFil: Hart, Catherine E.. Grupo Tortuguero de las Californias A.C; México. Investigacion, Capacitacion y Soluciones Ambientales y Sociales A.C; MéxicoFil: Hawkes, Lucy A.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Hays, Graeme C.. Deakin University; AustraliaFil: Hill, Nicholas. The Zoological Society of London; Reino UnidoFil: Hochscheid, Sandra. Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn; ItaliaFil: Kaska, Yakup. Dekamer—Sea Turtle Rescue Center; Turquía. Pamukkale Üniversitesi; TurquíaFil: Levy, Yaniv. University Of Haifa; Israel. Israel Nature And Parks Authority; IsraelFil: Ley Quiñónez, César P.. Instituto Politécnico Nacional; MéxicoFil: Lockhart, Gwen G.. Virginia Aquarium Marine Science Foundation; Estados Unidos. Naval Facilities Engineering Command; Estados UnidosFil: López-Mendilaharsu, Milagros. Projeto TAMAR; BrasilFil: Luschi, Paolo. Università degli Studi di Pisa; ItaliaFil: Mangel, Jeffrey C.. University of Exeter; Reino Unido. Pro Delphinus; PerúFil: Margaritoulis, Dimitris. Archelon; GreciaFil: Maxwell, Sara M.. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: McClellan, Catherine M.. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Metcalfe, Kristian. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Mingozzi, Antonio. Università Della Calabria; ItaliaFil: Moncada, Felix G.. Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras; CubaFil: Nichols, Wallace J.. California Academy Of Sciences; Estados Unidos. Center For The Blue Economy And International Environmental Policy Program; Estados UnidosFil: Parker, Denise M.. Noaa Fisheries Service; Estados UnidosFil: Patel, Samir H.. Coonamessett Farm Foundation; Estados Unidos. Drexel University; Estados UnidosFil: Pilcher, Nicolas J.. Marine Research Foundation; MalasiaFil: Poulin, Sarah. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Read, Andrew J.. Duke University Marine Laboratory; Estados UnidosFil: Rees, ALan F.. University of Exeter; Reino Unido. Archelon; GreciaFil: Robinson, David P.. The Aquarium and Dubai Turtle Rehabilitation Project; Emiratos Arabes UnidosFil: Robinson, Nathan J.. Fundación Oceanogràfic; EspañaFil: Sandoval-Lugo, Alejandra G.. Instituto Politécnico Nacional; MéxicoFil: Schofield, Gail. Queen Mary University of London; Reino UnidoFil: Seminoff, Jeffrey A.. Noaa National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Regional Office; Estados UnidosFil: Seney, Erin E.. University Of Central Florida; Estados UnidosFil: Snape, Robin T. E.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Sözbilen, Dogan. Dekamer—sea Turtle Rescue Center; Turquía. Pamukkale University; TurquíaFil: Tomás, Jesús. Institut Cavanilles de Biodiversitat I Biologia Evolutiva; EspañaFil: Varo Cruz, Nuria. Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria; España. Ads Biodiversidad; España. Instituto Canario de Ciencias Marinas; EspañaFil: Wallace, Bryan P.. University of Duke; Estados Unidos. Ecolibrium, Inc.; Estados UnidosFil: Wildermann, Natalie E.. Texas A&M University; Estados UnidosFil: Witt, Matthew J.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Zavala Norzagaray, Alan A.. Instituto politecnico nacional; MéxicoFil: Halpin, Patrick N.. University of Duke; Estados Unido

Memory reactivations during sleep: a neural basis of dream experiences?

Newly encoded memory traces are spontaneously reactivated during sleep. Since their discovery in the 1990s, these memory reactivations have been discussed as a potential neural basis for dream experiences. New results from animal and human research, as well as the rapidly growing field of sleep and dream engineering, provide essential insights into this question, revealing both strong parallels and disparities between the two phenomena. We suggest that while memory reactivations may contribute to subjective experiences across different states of consciousness, they are not likely to be experienced directly as dreams. We identify important limitations in current research paradigms and suggest novel strategies to address this question empirically

DataSheet_1_Biologically Important Areas II for cetaceans within U.S. and adjacent waters – Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea Region.pdf

We delineated and scored Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) for cetaceans in the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea region. BIAs represent areas and times in which cetaceans are known to concentrate for activities related to reproduction, feeding, and migration, and also the known ranges of small and resident populations. This effort, the second led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), uses structured elicitation principles to build upon the first version of NOAA’s BIAs (BIA I) for cetaceans. Supporting evidence for BIA II came from aerial-, land-, and vessel-based surveys; satellite-tagging data; passive acoustic monitoring; Indigenous knowledge; photo-identification data; whaling data, including stomach and fecal contents; prey studies; and genetics. In addition to narratives, maps, and metadata tables, the BIA II products incorporate a scoring and labeling system, which will improve their utility and interpretability. BIAs are compilations of the best available science and have no inherent regulatory authority. They have been used by NOAA, other federal agencies, and the public to support planning and marine mammal impact assessments, and to inform the development of conservation measures for cetaceans. In the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea region, a total of 19 BIAs were identified, delineated, and scored for seven species, including bowhead, North Pacific right, gray, humpback, fin, and sperm whales, and belugas. These include one hierarchical BIA for belugas that consists of one localized “child” BIA within an overarching “parent” BIA. There were 15 feeding, 3 migratory, and 1 small and resident population BIAs; no reproductive BIAs were identified. In some instances, information existed about a species’ use of a particular area and time, but the information was insufficient to confidently delineate the candidate BIA; in those cases, the candidate BIA was added to a watch list. A total of 22 watch list areas were identified and delineated for 10 species, including all species mentioned above and minke whales, harbor porpoises, and Dall’s porpoises. There were 15 feeding, 4 migratory, 2 reproductive, and 1 small and resident population watch list areas. Some BIAs and watch list areas were transboundary between the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea region and the Arctic region.</p

Table_1_Biologically Important Areas II for cetaceans within U.S. and adjacent waters – Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea Region.docx

We delineated and scored Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) for cetaceans in the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea region. BIAs represent areas and times in which cetaceans are known to concentrate for activities related to reproduction, feeding, and migration, and also the known ranges of small and resident populations. This effort, the second led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), uses structured elicitation principles to build upon the first version of NOAA’s BIAs (BIA I) for cetaceans. Supporting evidence for BIA II came from aerial-, land-, and vessel-based surveys; satellite-tagging data; passive acoustic monitoring; Indigenous knowledge; photo-identification data; whaling data, including stomach and fecal contents; prey studies; and genetics. In addition to narratives, maps, and metadata tables, the BIA II products incorporate a scoring and labeling system, which will improve their utility and interpretability. BIAs are compilations of the best available science and have no inherent regulatory authority. They have been used by NOAA, other federal agencies, and the public to support planning and marine mammal impact assessments, and to inform the development of conservation measures for cetaceans. In the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea region, a total of 19 BIAs were identified, delineated, and scored for seven species, including bowhead, North Pacific right, gray, humpback, fin, and sperm whales, and belugas. These include one hierarchical BIA for belugas that consists of one localized “child” BIA within an overarching “parent” BIA. There were 15 feeding, 3 migratory, and 1 small and resident population BIAs; no reproductive BIAs were identified. In some instances, information existed about a species’ use of a particular area and time, but the information was insufficient to confidently delineate the candidate BIA; in those cases, the candidate BIA was added to a watch list. A total of 22 watch list areas were identified and delineated for 10 species, including all species mentioned above and minke whales, harbor porpoises, and Dall’s porpoises. There were 15 feeding, 4 migratory, 2 reproductive, and 1 small and resident population watch list areas. Some BIAs and watch list areas were transboundary between the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea region and the Arctic region.</p

sj-docx-1-jpe-10.1177_0739456X241230002 – Supplemental material for Understanding How Racism and Affect Impact Public Opinions toward Affordable Housing in the United States

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jpe-10.1177_0739456X241230002 for Understanding How Racism and Affect Impact Public Opinions toward Affordable Housing in the United States by Isabella P. Douglas, Deland Chan, Lucy Zhang Bencharit and Sarah L. Billington in Journal of Planning Education and Research</p

Biologically Important Areas II for cetaceans within U.S. and adjacent waters - Updates and the application of a new scoring system

Building on earlier work identifying Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) for cetaceans in U.S. waters (BIA I), we describe the methodology and structured expert elicitation principles used in the “BIA II” effort to update existing BIAs, identify and delineate new BIAs, and score BIAs for 25 cetacean species, stocks, or populations in seven U.S. regions. BIAs represent areas and times in which cetaceans are known to concentrate for activities related to reproduction, feeding, and migration, as well as known ranges of small and resident populations. In this BIA II effort, regional cetacean experts identified the full extent of any BIAs in or adjacent to U.S. waters, based on scientific research, Indigenous knowledge, local knowledge, and community science. The new BIA scoring and labeling system improves the utility and interpretability of the BIAs by designating an overall Importance Score that considers both (1) the intensity and characteristics underlying an area’s identification as a BIA; and (2) the quantity, quality, and type of information, and associated uncertainties upon which the BIA delineation and scoring depend. Each BIA is also scored for boundary uncertainty and spatiotemporal variability (dynamic, ephemeral, or static). BIAs are region-, species-, and time-specific, and may be hierarchically structured where detailed information is available to support different scores across a BIA. BIAs are compilations of the best available science and have no inherent regulatory authority. BIAs may be used by international, federal, state, local, or Tribal entities and the public to support planning and marine mammal impact assessments, and to inform the development of conservation and mitigation measures, where appropriate under existing authorities. Information provided online for each BIA includes: (1) a BIA map; (2) BIA scores and label; (3) a metadata table detailing the data, assumptions, and logic used to delineate, score, and label the BIA; and (4) a list of references used in the assessment. Regional manuscripts present maps and scores for the BIAs, by region, and narratives summarizing the rationale and information upon which several representative BIAs are based. We conclude with a comparison of BIA II to similar international efforts and recommendations for improving future BIA assessments

Lucid dream induction with sleep EEG wearables

Lucid dreaming (LD) is defined as a state of awareness of the ongoing dream state while sleeping. Lucid dreaming is a rather rare phenomenon; however, it can be learned and trained, and various studies have proposed different techniques to ‘induce’ lucid dreams. Nonetheless, these studies either lacked physiological measurements and were therefore merely limited to self-reported questionnaires, or in the case of including physiological measurements, their generalizability was restricted mainly due to the exclusive recruitment of ‘experienced’ lucid dreamers. Only a few studies attempted to reliably induce lucid dreams in ‘naive’ participants, but they involved small sample sizes and have not yet been replicated. To overcome these limitations, we designed a multi-center study including three laboratories, in the Netherlands, Canada, and Italy respectively, with the aim of recruiting 60 participants overall (i.e. 20 participants per laboratory). This is the largest sample size for a lucid dreaming induction study with physiological measurements to date. We will test the applicability of a combination of two lucid dreaming induction techniques: targeted lucidity reactivation (TLR) and sense-initiated lucid dream (SSILD), which will be implemented by presenting perceptual cues (visual, auditory, and tactile) before and during REM sleep. To do so, we will employ minimal measurement modalities, i.e., an EEG headband and three additional chin EMG electrodes. We will also use this dataset to develop and validate the first open-source dream engineering toolbox, Dreamento (DREAM ENgineering TOolbox, Esfahani et al., 2022). Participants will visit the laboratory three times throughout an approximately two week period, including an intake session and two morning naps (stimulation and control, in counterbalanced order across subjects). During the intake session, participants will receive information about the study and complete preliminary screening questionnaires. Then, participants will complete daily dream diaries for the following two weeks. The morning nap sessions will be held at least one and two weeks after the intake session, respectively. Both nap sessions consist of the same cognitive training procedure during wakefulness, but differ in terms of the sensory stimulation procedure during sleep. Participants will receive sensory cues upon detection of REM sleep during the stimulation session, but not during the control session. They will be instructed to signal their lucidity using a predefined intentional eye movement pattern (left-right-left-right, LRLR) and will be awakened once the REM period ends to report any subjective experience and complete a lucidity questionnaire

The importance of migratory connectivity for global ocean policy

The distributions of migratory species in the ocean span local, national and international jurisdictions. Across these ecologically interconnected regions, migratory marine species interact with anthropogenic stressors throughout their lives. Migratory connectivity, the geographical linking of individuals and populations throughout their migratory cycles, influences how spatial and temporal dynamics of stressors affect migratory animals and scale up to influence population abundance, distribution and species persistence. Population declines of many migratory marine species have led to calls for connectivity knowledge, especially insights from animal tracking studies, to be more systematically and synthetically incorporated into decision-making. Inclusion of migratory connectivity in the design of conservation and management measures is critical to ensure they are appropriate for the level of risk associated with various degrees of connectivity. Three mechanisms exist to incorporate migratory connectivity into international marine policy which guides conservation implementation: site-selection criteria, network design criteria and policy recommendations. Here, we review the concept of migratory connectivity and its use in international policy, and describe the Migratory Connectivity in the Ocean system, a migratory connectivity evidence-base for the ocean. We propose that without such collaboration focused on migratory connectivity, efforts to effectively conserve these critical species across jurisdictions will have limited effect